HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE GEOLOGIC
COLUMN: PART I

The crucial questions on the relationship of Genesis and geology, of
religion and geological science nearly all hinge in some way on one's understanding of the
meaning and significance of the geologic column. It is important, therefore, to understand
something of its origin as a system.
Most commonly the term geologic column is applied to a
composite columnar section in which there is an attempt to superimpose rocks representing
every period of time for the world as a whole. In this way it is thought that the column
can be used somewhat like a calendar for dating rock formations and as a unifying concept,
a datum in relation to which a large part of the vast fund of geological information and
theory can be organized. In the various major regions of the world, locations with
favorable exposures and typical deposits for individual segments of the column (epoch or
series divisions) may be selected as type sections for use in correlation, as,
for instance, the magnificent, little disturbed Middle Cambrian formations of the Canadian
Rockies (the Albertan Series) to which Middle Cambrian rocks throughout North America are
compared.
Time units used in the geologic column include eras, the major
divisions such as Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic; periods, the first
subdivisions of eras including Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, etc.; epochs, the
subdivisions of periods such as Lower, Middle and Upper Cambrian, or Paleocene, Eocene and
so on in the Tertiary period; and stages, divisions of the epochs used primarily
by specialists. For each time division there is a unit of strata equivalent. Only eras,
periods and epochs are usually listed on most geologic columns, and sometimes only the
epochs for the most recent periods (see Table 2).

*To conform to space limitations, it was necessary to leave out many of the
units and subdivisions in this column.

Upon reflection it is obvious that substantial deposition cannot
normally occur over the entire earth's surface at the same time. There must always be a
source for every particle of gravel, sand, lime, silt or lava which is deposited. It
follows that no single interval or moment in earth history can be everywhere represented
by deposits. There are no universal formations.
Moreover, since there is much evidence to support the view that no
single region has continuously received deposits from the time of the creation of the
planet until now, in developing a complete "geologic column" for the world it is
necessary to attempt to correlate strata so that any level where non-deposition or an
erosional break has occurred may be represented by rocks from other areas laid down at the
time of the missing interval. This introduces a subjective element, but fortunately there
are hundreds of regions with extensive series of superimposed strata representing major
segments of the column, and there are diverse criteria for correlation available so that
correlations necessary may generally be quite firmly established.
Approximately three quarters of the total land area of the planet is
blanketed by many layers of sediments, commonly transformed into stratified rock (Putnam
1964:21). With an average aggregate thickness of several thousands of feet, these strata
vary from level to level. More often than not traces of past life called fossils
are preserved in these layers. Sequences of these layers or strata which have similar
lithological, fossil and structural characteristics, hence distinguishable in the field
from other such sequences, are called rock formations. Formations are usually
given names associated with a location where the unit is typical and well exposed 
the type locality.
While generally there are no more than two or three dozen rock
formations, and often only one or a few exposed on any single canyon wall, mountain slope
or well core, it is estimated that in aggregate there may be 13,000 formations in North
America and possibly 100,000 in the world (Dunbar and Rodgers 1957:289). Information about
just the fossils in a single important formation is, in many cases, the subject of a score
or more of technical articles and/or perhaps one to several book-length volumes. Studies
on the lithology, sedimentary features, solution phenomena, ores, etc., may occupy more
articles or volumes.
The data are vast. It is essential to be able to correlate beds from
one basin to the next, and even from one continent to another as far as possible. Several
of the characteristics used include: assemblages of fossils which appear to be restricted
to a limited vertical range in the column (guide or index fossils), relative position in a
sequence, direct physical continuity in the field, lithological characteristics,
geophysical and geochemical characteristics, etc. Guide fossils and relative position are
often most useful.
Because of the great ages commonly assigned to the periods and epochs
of the geologic column, and because it is often alleged that the column of fossil-bearing
rock documents, at least in a partial way, the record of the evolution of life on the
earth, the geologic column has been the subject of sharp controversy. It has been totally
rejected by some, and partially or completely reinterpreted by others. Students who use
the terminology of the column are sometimes viewed with considerable suspicion. Many
conservative Christians and fundamentalists believe that the geologic column represents a
scheme by which the strata of the earth have been arranged in an artificial order so as to
support false claims of evolution. Some have felt that the true relation of fossils to one
another and to living forms has been concealed by a disguising terminology deliberately
constructed to deceive by scientists who have been seeking to escape the moral imperatives
set forth in the Holy Scriptures (Price 1926: e.g., 112, 175, 205).
The purpose of this paper is to attempt to reconstruct as far as
possible significant presuppositions, beliefs and biases  the crosscurrents
influencing thought and interpretation of those men who established the foundations of
geology and the geologic column. It is beyond the scope of this study to evaluate the
relative merits of competing viewpoints. This paper cannot more than sample the lines of
evidence interpreted by geologists of those decades as requiring a greatly expanded time
frame for earth history, nor to more than mention the existence, much less the
interpretations and arguments, of the conservative opponents since they were not involved
in the formulation of the geologic column.
Part I (this issue) includes a definition of the geologic column,
together with several basic terms, an outline of early systems of classification of
strata, samples of typical views concerning fossils in the prescientific period of
geology, and a brief consideration of men who laid the foundation for the scientific study
of geology in the early 19th century. Part II (next issue of ORIGINS) focuses on the men
who formulated the geologic column between 1820-1850, their attempts to harmonize geology
and Genesis, and conservative opposition to their views.

EARLY OBSERVATIONS AND VIEWS

Before 1800  Systems of Classification

In the eighteenth century, associated with an increased utilization
of earth materials  coal, metals and other minerals  several proposals for
classification of the rock layers of the earth's crust were introduced. Deserving of
special mention are three which embody a recognition of a chronological sequence, of an
orderly succession of strata, and of geological processes involved in erosion,
sedimentation and preservation of fossils  accepted concepts today, but largely
unappreciated before the 18th century. Preflood, flood, and postflood formations were
postulated. These three were largely free from the fanciful speculations so characteristic
of most contemporary authors.
In 1756 Johann Gottlob Lehmann, a mining engineer and teacher in Berlin
who investigated the rocks of Prussia, published a wealth of careful observations together
with his ideas on the origin and composition of the earth's crust (Adams 1938:374-478;
Zittel 1901:35). Lehmann recognized three major categories of mountains:
1. The most ancient class of mountains composed of rocks of a
crystalline nature, hard, structurally complex, and chiefly without fossils, were
designated Primitive (equivalent to Primary of Arduino). These primeval
mountains were generally of higher elevation, with strata often inclined or vertical,
plunging to unknown depths. They were thought to have been formed before the universal
deluge in the early periods of creation.
2. The Flötzgebirge or horizontal mountains were composed of
successive, stratified, water-laid sediments and often contained animal and plant fossils
(designated Secondary by Arduino and later authors). Many of these formations
were thought to have been deposited at the time of the universal deluge. Such strata were
considered "secondary" in the sense that they were composed of particles eroded
from the older rocks of the "primitive" or "primary" mountains.
Lehmann gave accurate descriptions, with sections and diagrams, of thirty successive
"bands" in the Permian rocks of Thuringia. The recognition of a definite order
and the aqueous origin of the sediments enhanced the merit of his work on secondary
formations.
3. Later deposits, including mountains formed from time to time (e.g.,
volcanic mountains), and loosely consolidated surficial sands and gravels, commonly termed
Alluvial, comprised his third division.
George Christian Füchsel (1722-1773), a less well-known contemporary
of Lehmann living in Prussia, worked on Triassic strata and contributed significantly to
the foundation for later studies in stratigraphy. Füchsel developed the concept of a rock
formation as a depositional unit representing a certain epoch of time. Such formations
were not thrown out at random, but deposited initially in a horizontal position as part of
a clearly delineated, orderly succession under circumstances that may be inferred from the
lithology and characteristic fossil assemblage. He felt that the most recent deposits in
his district, which contained only terrestrial fossils, were from "the action of a
great deluge." Lyell (1834:76) states that Füchsel manifested a "strong
desire ... to explain geological phenomena as far as possible by reference to the agency of
known causes."
Giovani Arduino (1713-1795), an inspector of mines in the province of
Tuscany, and later Professor of Mineralogy in Venice, gave us the threefold division of
the rocks of the earth's crust: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary.
"Tertiary" is still retained for a period, or system, of the Cenozoic.
1. Primary or Primitive  These were unfossiliferous
rocks including schist, gneiss, quartz veins, highly folded rocks, etc.
2. Secondary  Included were several groups of strata
with limestones, marls, clays, etc., all with fossils. Rocks recognized as Cretaceous by
later workers were included as the uppermost unit in this division. In most of the 18th
and 19th century literature, "Secondary" was applied to the vast series of
strata from the mid-Paleozoic through Mesozoic (see Table 3).
3. Tertiary  "Arduino's Montes tertiarii
consists of younger and highly fossiliferous series of limestones, sand, marl, clay, etc.,
and he observes that the material of these can in many cases be shown to have been derived
from the Secondary series" (Zittel 1901:38).
This observation of the recycling of material from older to younger
fossil-bearing strata, which was encountered in many rock formations, also impressed many
later workers with the need for successive epochs. It seemed necessary to account first
for initial deposition and burial of fossils, followed by lithification, then by break-up,
erosion of the formation, transport, incorporation into another sediment, followed by
lithification of the new deposit (see, for example, Conybeare and Phillips 1822:xiv).
4. In addition to the three major divisions, a series of submarine lava
and tuff deposits were placed in a Volcanic division.
It is not surprising that in Italy, a land where strata of the
mountains to the north were twisted and contorted and where volcanoes and earthquakes
resulting in change of the level of the land in relation to the sea were of repeated
occurrence, Arduino would conclude that the earth had "undergone repeated upheavals
and subsidences, many 'revolutions' and 'metamorphoses'" (Adams 1938:374). The
gradual evolution of the concept that many of the formations represented deposits at
successive periods of time served to pave the way for views that were to become widespread
in both Britain and Europe during the early years of the next century.

There are isolated examples before 1800 of philosophers and
scientists whose writings give penetrating insights on the origin and nature of fossils
and fossil-bearing strata. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), the Italian artist and sculptor,
exhibited an understanding of processes involved in fossilization, lithification and
subsequent exposure of fossils. Two centuries later Robert Hooke (1635-1703) recognized
the value of fossils for reconstruction of the life and climate of former times, and Niels
Stensen (Steno) perceived in the strata evidence of a chronological sequence of events in
earth history (for the past "6000 years," mainly during and since the flood)
including principles of superposition, original horizontality, and concepts of the role of
sedimentation and erosion in burial and exposure of fossils.
But such references are generally secondary to a primary interest, and
are widely separated in space and time. Far more pervasive were myths and fanciful
speculations, not infrequently from men of stature from whom such statements seem
strangely out of character. Teeth and bones of large animals such as mammoths (fossil
elephants) were often attributed to antediluvian man, and were sometimes placed in the
foyer of churches as a witness to the giant race which perished at the time of the flood.
St. Augustine, in the fifth century, used as evidence of giants before the flood a large
fossil tooth from which at least a hundred teeth of an ordinary size might be made
(Howorth 1887:18). In 1726 J. J. Scheuchzer identified the skeleton of a giant salamander
as from "one of those infamous men whose sins brought upon the world the dire
misfortune of the deluge," naming it appropriately, Homo diluvii testis,
which means "witness of deluge man" (Zittel 1901:20). Ezra Stiles, President of
Yale, in response to an inquiry from Thomas Jefferson (1784), suggests that the
"mammoths of Siberia all truly belong to an animal race in the shape of men, called
Giants in the Scriptures" (Dunbar and Waage 1969:60-61).
Insofar as the nature of fossils and strata were understood, however,
they presented little if any problem at that time for biblical views, generally being used
rather as confirmatory evidence that the flood once covered the earth. Tertullian (c.160 -
c.230 A.D.) and other early church fathers cited as evidence of a universal flood the
existence of marine shells on hilltops (Rudwick 1976:36-37). The well-known skeptic
Voltaire (1694-1778), perceiving fossil evidence as a threat, contrived a variety of
arguments in an attempt to discount the weight of evidence. Fearing that news of the
discovery of marine fossils in various upland regions of Europe might be used in support
of the Genesis flood, he "fought desperately the growing results of the geologic
investigations" by proposing alternative, albeit far-out, explanations, e.g., that
fossils were from the spoiled remains of fishes intended for food and discarded by
Crusaders returning from the Holy Land (White 1896:229).
Fossil-bearing strata were generally attributed to a single event
 the Genesis flood. Hence successive periods of time, origin of new species, and
successive creations were not necessary. A literal six-day creation week a few thousand
years ago was the prevailing view, although such a position had been questioned from time
to time.

THE FORMATIVE PERIOD OF GEOLOGY 1785-1850

The conjunction of insights that resulted about the turn of the
century from a systematic and comparative study of fossils and the recognition of the
value of fossils for correlation of strata opened broad new vistas, thereby stimulating
extensive studies. Students began to look again at the rocks of their own districts, as
well as those of remote areas of the world, rugged mountain areas of Europe, Asia and even
America. Geology earned a place in the academic disciplines, with famous men occupying the
chairs: William Buckland at Oxford and Adam Sedgwick at Cambridge. This was a period of
rapid change, of controversy over models of rock formation and earth history. The geologic
column was introduced during these decades, and became an integrating concept. The welter
of new views initiated sharp conflicts between interpreters of Genesis and of geology,
many of which still plague conservative Christians today.
We shall comment briefly on several of the major innovators in the
early part of this period. Our purpose is to gain an acquaintance with the persons who
founded geology; to highlight relevant conceptual and methodological advances; and to
understand prevailing theories, important because theories both derive from and, in turn,
influence observation and interpretation.

Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749-1817)

Within a few years of Werner's appointment in 1875 as professor at a
small, obscure School of Mines in Freiburg, Saxony, the school was "raised to the
rank of a great university," with "men already distinguished in science"
coming from all parts of Britain and Europe to study under the "great oracle of
geology" (Lyell 1834:82). A penetrating mind with a rich store of knowledge, together
with a charm and eloquence, attracted and kindled enthusiasm among his students,
contributing to his enormous influence. Also to his credit were his use of exact methods
of field observation and description, the introduction of a precise terminology for
describing strata, and most of all the development of a superior classification of rocks
based on mineral composition  all essential if geology was to be elevated to a
science in its own right.
Because "he indulged in the most bold and sweeping
generalizations," and tended toward dogmatism on fundamental theories, several of
which were proven false even during his lifetime (Lyell 1834:82), he became one of the
most controversial figures in the history of geology, though it was not the great master
but his students and disciples who engaged in the dispute.
Early in his career Werner developed a unique theory of the origin of
strata which was to become the basis for his chronological scheme of classification. His
five basic series or suites of strata were an expansion and modification of the earlier
systems of Lehmann, Füchsel and others, and in certain respects an enormous step backward
from them. Nearly all of the rocks  igneous (1), metamorphic and most sedimentary
 he believed to be chemical or mechanical precipitates deposited during successive
epochs from a primeval turbid ocean which enveloped the entire earth. These universal
envelopes, like the skins on an onion (onion-coat theory), whether folded, tilted or
flat-lying, were held with few exceptions to have been deposited in the same position they
now occupy. Because of the important role of the sea, his followers were often called
"Neptunists" after Neptune, the god of the sea.
The discovery, about the same time, by James Hutton and his disciples
of the true nature of igneous and metamorphic rocks, together with more accurate insights
into the nature of sedimentary rocks, led to decades of stormy controversy (see cover photograph). Because of Hutton's stress on the role of heat in the
formation of rocks which cooled from a molten beginning, and his belief that heat also
contributed to the consolidation of sediments, his followers were called
"Vulcanists" or "Plutonists" after the god of the underworld, Pluto.
Europe was divided into two camps: Werner's loyal students and the followers of Hutton.
The overwhelming dominance of Werner's views, his position of unrivaled authority among
his followers, especially on the continent where he became for geology "a kind of
scientific pope," retarded the development of stratigraphy (Krumbein and Sloss
1958:11; Lyell 1834:81-82; Ospovat 1969:242-256).

James Hutton (1726-1797)

An early synthesis of Hutton's views given as a paper to the Royal
Society of Edinburgh in 1785, while immediately controversial, was ultimately expanded
into a two-volume work, The Theory of the Earth, published in 1795.
Hutton's major points, carefully reasoned and bolstered by field
observations, were a refutation of the central thrust of the Neptunism of Werner. He
advocated the origin of basalt from volcanoes and granite from magma. He associated the
chemical and mechanical processes of weathering of rocks with the formation of sedimentary
particles, thus showing clearly for the first time the essential relations between denudation
of rock surfaces by wind, water, and gravity to transport and deposition of
sediments in sites of accumulation where they were consolidated into sedimentary rocks
(Zittel 1901:71). In contrast to Werner's view that younger rocks could be precipitated
within as well as above older rocks, Hutton enunciated the principle of superposition
(Krumbein and Sloss 1958:12).
Phenomena which might appear at first sight to bespeak catastrophe
could result from ongoing processes if time were interjected into the picture (Figures
1-3). Taking "the present as the key to the past," the famous dictum of
uniformitarianism, he refused to speculate on origins, maintaining that "we find no
vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end." According to John Playfair, his close
friend and frequent companion on geological excursions, he did not deny a beginning but
only maintained that evidence of a beginning is not accessible through science.
Like Werner, Hutton did not participate in the debate, and he died in
1797 before it reached its zenith. Controversy raged not only with Wernerians but with the
early catastrophists over the reality and results of cataclysmic events (later
catastrophists allowed that uniformity might prevail between cataclysms). With Neptunists
the origins of basalt, of granite, of sedimentary rocks, etc., were sore points. Hutton
was attacked by many Christians as an infidel and charged with "warping everything to
support the eternity of the world," of deposing the "Almighty Creator of the
universe from His office" (see Lyell 1834:97).
Most of the principles that Hutton introduced were eventually
incorporated into geology, profoundly influencing the course of inquiry down to the
present time. Elements of his theory, such as the role of heat in consolidation of
sediments and, more importantly, the idea that rates and magnitudes of geologic activity
are approximately constant, have been or are now being rejected or revised.

FIGURE 1. Unconformable contact between vertical Silurian strata below and
horizontal Devonian Old Red Sandstone above. Discovered in 1788 at Siccar Point a few
miles east of Edinburgh, Scotland, by Hutton together with Playfair and Hall.

FIGURE 2. The indurated sedimentary Silurian cobbles in the basal portion of the
horizontal Old Red Sandstone confirmed Hutton's conviction that some of the geologic
processes involved, such as the erosion of the indurated Silurian beds, were of a
"uniformitarian" nature.

FIGURE 3. A comparable unconformable contact much higher in the column between
Carboniferous and Triassic strata in South Wales near Barry.

William Smith (1769-1839)

William Smith has been referred to as an "ignorant English land
surveyor," (Price 1926:51) and otherwise as a "self-taught genius of rare
originality and with exceptionally keen powers of observation" who was able to
"elucidate the structure of his native land with such clearness and accuracy that no
important alteration has had to be made in his works" (Zittel 1901:111-112).
His first major contribution was the recognition in 1798, while
constructing canals through fossiliferous rock strata in Southern England, that fossil
assemblages often include forms that are restricted to and typical of zones, formations or
larger segments of the column (Figures 4 and 5). He determined that the occurrence of such
fossils is consistent so that they may be used together with lithology and other features
as "guides" in mapping and correlating strata (reported the following year in
1799). Secondly, he applied the method and within a few years (1815) had produced the
first geologic map of an area of regional extent  England, Wales and a part of
Scotland. Independently of Smith, Cuvier and Brongniart discovered the value of
"guide fossils" while working through the series of strata in the Paris Basin in
France.
As strata have been studied in all parts of the world, the order has
been found to be consistently reliable in numerous sections, although extensions of the
range of some "guide" or "index fossils" are made from time to time.
This discovery by Smith  the value of fossil assemblages, guide fossils, in
complementing other means of comparison, and making possible correlation over greater
distances  was undeniably the most important geological breakthrough of the century,
essential for establishing a geologic column of more than regional application. As with
any methodology there are various theoretical problems and limitations, but generally not
seriously affecting the usefulness of the method.
Appropriately in the annals of geology William Smith is often referred
to as the "Father of English Geology," or simply as "Strata Smith."

FIGURES 4 and 5. Jurassic beds near Lyme Regis on the south coast of Dorset,
England, with ammonites from one of the resistant carbonate beds. While studying these
beds and others about 1800, William Smith developed the concept of "guide
fossils." A few years later these strata were to yield the specimens from which Evard
Home, W. D. Conybeare and others reconstructed and described (1814-1824) Ichthyosaurs and
Plesioseurs, two hitherto unknown great groups of extinct marine reptiles.

Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)

Although the structure of vertebrates is far more complex than that
of sea shells, plants and other lowly forms, when known and understood in detail, even
limited parts such as the individual teeth or bones most likely to be preserved as fossils
can be used to determine whether a reptile, amphibian, mammal or other vertebrate is
represented. And if it happens to be the right tooth or bone, accurate diagnosis of the
family, genus or species is often possible.
Cuvier had the interest, the keen intellect, the drive, the
originality, and the ample resources (the French government) to make, for the first time,
vast comparative studies of a wide range of living as well as fossil vertebrates so that
they might be accurately identified and properly related on fundamental characteristics.
Thus, in the early years of the 19th century the study of fossil vertebrates advanced from
almost total darkness to broad daylight. Since the basis of vertebrate paleontology is
essentially the comparative anatomy of fossil forms, Cuvier is justly recognized as the
founder of both comparative vertebrate anatomy and vertebrate paleontology. His Researches
on Fossil Bones is a classic. "In the whole literature of comparative anatomy
and paleontology there is scarcely any work that can rank with this great masterpiece of
Cuvier" (Zittel 1901:137).
Once Cuvier had blazed the trail, others followed. William Buckland of
Oxford and Gideon Mantell, the physician-paleontologist, applied the method with great
success to vertebrate remains in Britain. A few years later, Sir Richard Owen produced a
magnificent series of studies on fossil reptiles, and a monumental work on Odontography
(1839-1845). Many other workers entered the field both in the old and new world. Whole new
vistas of ancient land life were now, for the first time, opened to view. A key had been
forged, a breakthrough necessary for meaningful study and correlation of formations in
which land vertebrates are the major fossils preserved (terrestrial biostratigraphy).
But Cuvier did not confine his studies to these topics. With his friend
and associate, Alexandre Brongniart (1770-1847), almost every week for four years he made
excursions to the country in the environs of Paris making detailed studies of the
stratigraphy, structure and paleontology of the Cretaceous and Tertiary series of
formations. Their work on the Paris Basin, published in 1808 and expanded in 1811, remains
a classic for accurate observation and original application of principles of
paleontological and stratigraphical analysis.
These early studies on the Paris Basin during the first decade of the
century led Cuvier to the theory of catastrophes, a theory that, with modifications and
acceptance by many of the most respected geologists of that time, profoundly affected
geological research and interpretation for the half century during which the geologic
column was founded. Only a few of the lines of evidence which led him to this conclusion
will be considered.
Cuvier speaks of questions and ideas that haunted him, even tormented
him all during his researches (Cuvier 1817:174). He was much impressed by the striking
changes which often marked the boundaries between successive formations: the abrupt change
in lithology; sometimes an erosional break; the marked changes in the fossil communities
 from marine, to fresh water, to marine, to land, etc. The shells were, Cuvier
(1817:8-9) observed, "almost everywhere in such a perfect state of preservation, that
even the smallest of them retain their most delicate parts, their sharpest ridges, and
their finest and tenderest processes." They must therefore, he reasoned, represent
successive communities buried where they lived rather than being transported from distant
areas and buried level upon level.
He and Brongniart early recognized the phenomena of restriction of
distinctive fossils to particular zones, formations or series  guide fossils 
and applied this tool in their stratigraphical studies. Moreover, they observed a pattern
or trend in the change from level to level. Of the shells found in the upper, more recent
levels, he states that the "eye of the most expert naturalist cannot distinguish from
those which at present inhabit the ocean." Forms of life recovered from successively
more ancient strata were observed to become progressively more strange and
"peculiar" (Cuvier 1817:13, 108-109).
Among the numerous other features that seemed to call for a long
interval of time between formations was the presence of a "breccia of chalk
fragments" at the base of the overlying clay beds which was taken to indicate that
the "chalk was already solid when the clay was deposited"; that is, lithified
chalk cobbles were recycled into the next younger deposit (Geikie 1905:368-369).
The picture that emerged then was one in which long intervals of
occupation and stability were thought to be separated by tectonic revolutions, destruction
of life, and eventual repopulation, possibly by migration of life from an unaffected
region in the world (Cuvier 1817:125-126) (2).
A man of religious faith, he resolved the stratigraphic evidence with
the biblical account by explaining that "a great and sudden revolution, the epoch of
which cannot be dated much farther back than five or six thousand years ago," which
had "buried all the countries which were before inhabited by men and by the other
animals that are now best known," was the last great revolution now "thoroughly
established in geology" (Cuvier 1817:171). This seemed to him to fit the data because
man and his artifacts were only known to be associated with the most recent deposits.
An eloquent statement concluding his essay on the Theory of the
Earth clearly reflects his attempt at reconciliation of Scripture and geology.
"And mankind, to whom has been allotted only an instant on the earth, would have the
glory of recreating the history of the thousands of centuries which preceded his
existence, and the thousands of beings which have not been his contemporaries"
(Quoted by Gillispie 1960:290-291; cf. Cuvier 1817:171, 178-181).
Cuvier was honored by his own people and government, and he became very
famous abroad. Such fame certainly contributed to the wide acceptance of his theory.
Although very different in substance from the theories of Werner and Hutton, Cuvier's
theory of catastrophes again called for long ages in explaining the geologic history of
the world. It was strenuously opposed by many conservative theologians and laymen, while
others embraced the idea.

RESUME

The work of Werner, Hutton, Smith, Cuvier and several
contemporaries, although sometimes fraught with controversy and beset by imperfect
theories, had succeeded in laying the groundwork that made a scientific study of geology
possible. The next three decades were a time of enormously rapid progress. Workers focused
on the crust of the earth in their own countries and traveled to distant parts of the
world to compare the strata and fossils; the geologic column was formulated much as it
exists today in its broader features; heightened tensions resulted from attempts to
harmonize earth history with the biblical record. These decades are considered in Part II
in the next issue of ORIGINS.

FOOTNOTES

In his classification of strata, only those lavas demonstrably associated with
volcanic vents were included in the Volcanic Series, which Werner, like several before
him, considered to result from subterranean fires of combustible materials such as coal.
One of the stormiest controversies of the early 19th century concerned the origin and
classification of extensive enigmatic basalt deposits in the British Isles, France and
other parts of Europe that were not clearly associated with discernable volcanic vents
(see cover photo). (For an extended discussion, see Geikie 1905).

Other workers, especially in England, introduced the idea of new divine creations
of progressively higher forms of life after each catastrophe, whereas Cuvier, while
explicitly denying that "new creations" were "required," from time to
time made statements which clearly indicated that he considered origin at successive
intervals a possibility. For example: "I do not pretend that a new creation was
required for calling our present races of animals into existence. I only urge that they
did not anciently occupy the same places, and that they must have come from some other
part of the globe" (Cuvier 1817:125-126). Concerning man: "He may have then
inhabited some narrow regions, whence he went forth to repeople the earth after the
cessation of these terrible revolutions and overwhelmings" (p. 131). On the other
hand, "we are also led to conclude that the oviparous quadrupeds began to exist along
with the fishes, and at the commencement of the period which produced the secondary
formations; while the land-quadrupeds did not appear upon the earth till long
afterwards, ... whence there is every reason to conclude that these animals have only begun
to exist, or at least to leave their remains in the strata of our earth ..." (pp.
108-109). "... And man, to whom only a short space of time is allotted upon the earth,
would have the glory of restoring the history of thousands of ages which preceded the
existence of the race, and of thousands of animals that never were contemporaneous with
his species" (p. 181).

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, F. D. 1938. The birth and development of geological science. Reprinted
1954 by Dover Publications, New York.

Conybeare, W. D. and William Phillips. 1822. Outlines of the geology of England
and Wales. W. Phillips, London. Reprinted 1978 by Arno Press, New York.

Cuvier, M. 1817. Essay on the theory of the earth. Edinburgh. Reprinted 1978 by
Arno Press, New York; translated from 1812 book.

de la Beche, Henry. 1833. Manual of geology. 3rd ed. London.

Dunbar, Carl O. and John Rodgers. 1957. Principles of stratigraphy. John Wiley
& Sons, New York.

COVER. Columnar basalt lava exposed on the west slope of
Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh, Scotland. The origin of columnar basalts and other lava not
clearly associated with recent volcanic vents defied resolution for many decades. Werner
interpreted them as precipitates from a primeval ocean. Hutton more correctly interpreted
them as lavas derived from molten magma, but thought they were intruded much like
horizontal dikes. By the 1820s and 30s evidence for their nature as eruptive volcanic
flows at many levels in the geologic column was given by Ami Boué, Sedgwick, De la Beche,
and others. (All photos by the author; see his article on pp. 59-76).